IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

Lee Stempniak Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1983-02-04 Country: USA
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  ■ Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2000-01 Buffalo Lightning OJHL 48 34 51 85 1.771 0.5319 0.5406 1.2121 1.2319
■ Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   ■ Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2004-05 Dartmouth D1 ECAC SR 35 14 29 43 1.229
2003-04 Dartmouth D1 ECAC JR 34 16 22 38 1.118
2002-03 Dartmouth D1 ECAC SO 34 21 28 49 1.441
2001-02 Dartmouth D1 ECAC FR 32 12 9 21 0.656
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.50
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.66
2001-02 · Dartmouth
+30.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4850
Forward overall
#168
Forward born in 1983
#15
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Evan Allen
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.72 PPG
→ Michigan (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.54 Developing
NCAAe PPG
John Hayden
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.83 PPG
→ Yale (0.48 D1 FR PPG)
0.53 Average
NCAAe PPG
Vinni Lettieri
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.92 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Anthony Louis
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.82 PPG
→ Miami (0.69 D1 FR PPG)
0.61 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Motte
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Michigan (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Anthony Iacullo
Saint Anselm · 2015-16
0.655 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Brett Ouderkirk
Norwich · 2015-16
0.966 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jaden Davis
Aurora · 2022-23
1.031 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.